Point of Law: Offence of murder - Benefit of doubt - Conviction set aside - In a case of circumstantial evidence motive is an important factor, which seems to be missing in present case - Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

ORDER :

1. The matter is taken up through video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. D.K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for respondent no. 1 as well as Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

3. This is an appeal filed by the accused challenging the order dated 10.03.2016, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Tezpur, in Sessions Case No. 187/2007 (State of Assam vs. Fr. Thomas Ekka), by which the present appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another one month.

4. The brief facts of the case as presented by the prosecution show that the alleged incident occurred on the night of 02.09.2005 at a place called Bishop’s House of the Tezpur Diocese, at Tezpur, Assam. In the incident, the Vicar General of Tezpur Diocese, Father Mathew Nellickal, was allegedly killed by the accused/appellant in the night of 02.09.2005, after 9:30 P.M. The body of the deceased was discovered by PWs 3 and 5, namely, Father Paul Dahanga and Father Luis Arimboos, respectively, on the next day morning, i.e. on 03.09.2005. A First Information Report was lodged on 03.09.2005 by PW-4, namely, Father Akasius Toppo and the FIR was registered as Tezpur P.S. Case No. 684/2005. However, since there was no progress in the police investigation, the matter was given to the CID for investigation and, during investigation the accused/appellant was arrested from his house at Kapati, in the district of Darrang. The CID completed its investigation and filed Charge-sheet against the accused/appellant on 11.05.2006. Thereafter, the matter was committed to the court of Sessions and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the matter being transferred from the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Tezpur, framed charges on 14.02.2008.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case examined as many as 23 witnesses and exhibited material documents and objects before the trial court. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence witness was examined on behalf of the defence. On completion of the trial, the learned trial court gave its finding that the prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, the accused/appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced for life imprisonment.

6. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant before this court is that, admittedly, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses to the incident. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of events must be complete and, more importantly, the entire chain of events should be such that they must point only to one conclusion that the accused has committed the murder. In other words, the evidence and the chain of events should be such that it must only logically conclude to the sole hypothesis, which is the guilt of the accused. Learned counsel for the appellant would, therefore, argue that the evidence presented by the prosecution do not complete the chain of events and, in fact, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

7. The incident, as already referred above, occurred in the night of 02.09.2005. Both the accused/appellant as well as the deceased are priests of a Catholic Seminary. The deceased occupied higher rank in this hierarchy and was, at the relevant time, holding the rank of “Vicar General” of the Tezpur Diocese and was residing at the Bishop’s House at Tezpur. The accused/appellant, on the other hand, was working as a Father in a seminary and was attached to the Guwahati Diocese, which is a different Diocese from the Tezpur Diocese. At the relevant time, the accused/appellant was residing at Bagicha Gaon,